@article{0fae8b7cd9144d68a5e08f922aa53823,
title = "Is research on professional identity formation biased? Early insights from a scoping review and metasynthesis",
abstract = "Objective: Despite a recent surge in literature identifying professional identity formation (PIF) as a key process in physician development, the empiric study of PIF in medicine remains in its infancy. To gain insight about PIF, the authors examined the medical literature and that of two other helping professions. Methods: The authors conducted a scoping review and qualitative metasynthesis of PIF in medicine, nursing and counselling/psychology. For the scoping review, four databases were searched using a combination of keywords to identify empiric studies on PIF in trainees. After a two-step screening process, thematic analysis was used to conduct the metasynthesis on screened articles. Results: A total of 7451 titles and abstracts were screened; 92 studies were included in the scoping review. Saturation was reached in the qualitative metasynthesis after reviewing 29 articles. Conclusion: The metasynthesis revealed three inter-related PIF themes across the helping professions: the importance of clinical experience, the role of trainees{\textquoteright} expectations of what a helping professional is or should be, and the impact of broader professional culture and systems on PIF. Upon reflection, most striking was that only 10 of the 92 articles examined trainee's sociocultural data, such as race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age and socio-economic status, in a robust way and included them in their analysis and interpretation. This raises the question of whether conceptions of PIF suffer from sociocultural bias, thereby disadvantaging trainees from diverse populations and preserving the status quo of an historically white, male medical culture.",
author = "Volpe, {Rebecca L.} and Margaret Hopkins and Paul Haidet and Wolpaw, {Daniel R.} and Adams, {Nancy E.}",
note = "Funding Information: Contributors: RLV was responsible for designing the project, analysing the articles for the scoping review and metasynthesis and primary drafting of the manuscript. MH collaborated on designing the project, made substantial contributions to the analysis of the articles for the scoping review and metasynthesis, and was a critical reader of early drafts of the manuscript. PH collaborated on designing the project, helped with interpretation of the data for the work and was a critical reader and reviser of the manuscript. DRW collaborated on designing the project, helped with interpretation of the data for the work and was a critical reader and reviser of the manuscript. NEA collaborated on designing the project, made substantial contributions to the analysis of the articles for the scoping review and metasynthesis, and was a critical reader and reviser of the manuscript. All authors gave final approval to submit this paper. Acknowledgements: the authors would like to thank Yendelela Cuffee for her thoughtful, constructive feedback on a draft of the manuscript. She was instrumental in identifying appropriate language to use around these sometimes sensitive topics. We would also like to thank an especially thoughtful blind peer-reviewer who reminded us of the idea of hegemony and how this applies to the research on PIF. Funding: this work was supported by the Arnold P. Gold Foundation Research Institute under Mapping the Landscape funding mechanism (2016–2018, US$7000). Conflicts of interest: none. Ethical approval: not applicable. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Education",
year = "2019",
month = feb,
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/medu.13781",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "53",
pages = "119--132",
journal = "Medical education",
issn = "0308-0110",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Inc.",
number = "2",
}